[praful]

Originally Posted by Urban_Nomad

Gotcha! Just FYI though, this is a tubeless tyre. And I don't mean "fit a tube type as tubeless" deal either. Michelin says its tubeless

Cant comment on the wet grip though. Is it really that bad, considering this tyre is doing duty as front rubber on at least 3 Katoom 390s that I personally know of

Nice! I did not know that Michelin introduced TL variants for the 100/90-18 and 100/90-17 variants. That size is too large, unlike on the Duke, the rim width on the Pulsar is much lesser.

But I am quite surprised that the tyre is holding up good in the wet, could of folks I know who used it as a rear tyre for the ZMA were not particularly happy with the wet grip.

Good to know it works well on the Duke

[sagarpadaki]

Originally Posted by praful

Looking to replace my Pulsar's front tyre, need something in either 90/90-17 or 100/80-17. I haven't used the stock MRF Zapper FS in almost 7 years now. Gone all over trying different tyre options so far -

1. IRC Wild Flare 90/90-17
2. MRF Zapper FX 100/80-17
3. Michelin Pilot Sporty 100/80-17
4. MRF Zapper FQ 80/100-17
5. Pirelli Sport Demon 100/80-17

I don't remember now if I missed a specific tyre that I might have used over the last 120K kms. But looks like the market is fairly limited right now and after all these years I may have to go back to stock Zapper FS.

Any suggestions?

I am not keen on trying the R15's (V1 & V2) tyre, though excellent (and they fit!!) the 80/90 and 90/80 profile reduces the sidewall height which I am not very comfortable as it can lead to bent alloys as I tend to not slow down for potholes/off road. Unfortunately the Duke/CBR/PulsarNS 110 size does not fit on my bike's narrow rims, else could have gone for the excellent Michelin Pilot Street radials.

I know that PSD is back on the market now, but

a) Its too expensive at almost 5K (don't want to invest so much on tyres for this bike)
b) My experience with PSD was not too positive anyway, the grip levels drastically dropped post 3K kms.

Since i am running on the second R15 V2 Zapper FY 90/80-17 on my Pulsar 180 UG3 which has smaller rim width than a P220 i think i can clear your doubts.

The tyre is the best in the market in the 90 section. And i have dropped into potholes at 80+ speeds and have not suffered any damage to the tyre or the rim. And this i have done more than 100 times easily(Not intentionally though!).

The reduction in ride height is marginal and you would not even notice it.

I would say you can blindly go for it. I vouch for its grip and feedback, not to mention the ease of procurement

[praful]

Originally Posted by sagarpadaki

Since i am running on the second R15 V2 Zapper FY 90/80-17 on my Pulsar 180 UG3 which has smaller rim width than a P220)

I am forgetting my Pulsar line up history here, but isn't UG3 the pre clipon version. The stock front was 2.75-17 right?

If yes, then definitely it came with the narrower rims and hence it pinches the 90/80 tyre more giving it slightly more sidewall profile than it would on my 220 rims.

Though the difference will be minimal, its risk I will not be taking. But definitely agree that its a super grippy tyre. Back during the R15 V1 days couple of my riding buddies had put the 80/90 front from R15 on their 220 and it gripped like a leech. But they had issues with the height being a little to less and some even ended up with bending their rims.

I think I will stick with stock for now, don't want to experiment anymore on my old hag.

[sagarpadaki]

Originally Posted by praful

I am forgetting my Pulsar line up history here, but isn't UG3 the pre clipon version. The stock front was 2.75-17 right?

If yes, then definitely it came with the narrower rims and hence it pinches the 90/80 tyre more giving it slightly more sidewall profile than it would on my 220 rims.

Though the difference will be minimal, its risk I will not be taking. But definitely agree that its a super grippy tyre. Back during the R15 V1 days couple of my riding buddies had put the 80/90 front from R15 on their 220 and it gripped like a leech. But they had issues with the height being a little to less and some even ended up with bending their rims.

I think I will stick with stock for now, don't want to experiment anymore on my old hag.

Yes, UG3 is the pre-clipon version . The first version with Digital speedo on the pulsar 180 lineup.

Your point also makes sense regarding the small rim width causing the tyre to bulge out and getting that 'extra' sidewall. I have no information on this tyre causing problems on the P200/P220 rims, so cannot comment on that. Guess, Zapper FS is your best bet.

[Vignesh_N/A]

Originally Posted by sagarpadaki

Since i am running on the second R15 V2 Zapper FY 90/80-17 on my Pulsar 180 UG3 which has smaller rim width than a P220 i think i can clear your doubts.

I have the FY on my Pulsar 135LS and the difference in terms of grip is huge. Yes the swap has resulted in slight reduction in height and the front seems to be more heavy now. Nevertheless no matter how I yank my front brakes, the front just refuses to lock up. Earlier, on the stock tyres though, I had multiple crashes just because the front end washed away on hard braking.

The only drawback was incompatibility of tubeless tyre on my rims. I had to use the tube from stock.

[2W-4W]

Guys, Need help with Himalayan Tyre. The sizes are very odd at 120/90/17 for rear and 90/90/21 for front.

Though I did find some option in Metzlers, but they are expensive at 12000 for rear. That seems to be an overkill for Himalayan. The OEM CEAT that bike is running on provide decent grip, but on wet surface they are awful. On top of that, rear is almost 80% gone within 8500 Kms.

Please suggest some good options in the 3-5K range if there are any...

[praful]

Originally Posted by 2W-4W

Guys, Need help with Himalayan Tyre. The sizes are very odd at 120/90/17 for rear and 90/90/21 for front.
.

Unfortunately, there isn't anything in the 120/90-17 size in the market. I know because I have been using the same size Michelin Sirac since 2009, have gone through around 5 Sirac's over the years and that was a brilliant tyre. Sadly, it stopped being sold IIRC since 2012/13 due to the whole no ISI mark on import tyre issue.

Currently using the Himlayan's CEAT tyre and found it to be quite decent in wet, can expect it to be a corner carver on wet roads. However if that is what you need i.e. a more road focussed tyre, you can try looking for options in the 130/80-17 size. I know there's RALCO Blaster available in that size, but is more dual sport than a road focussed tyre.

[2W-4W]

Originally Posted by praful

Unfortunately, there isn't anything in the 120/90-17 size in the market. I know because I have been using the same size Michelin Sirac since 2009, have gone through around 5 Sirac's over the years and that was a brilliant tyre. Sadly, it stopped being sold IIRC since 2012/13 due to the whole no ISI mark on import tyre issue.

That's good to hear, but my rear is just too eager to go sideways on wet surfaces... I do not have confidence on wet surfaces and usually am very cautious. Also, where did you source the Tyre from and for how much?

I don't need a road focused tire per se, but a Dual Sport only which is not overly expensive and can last at least 15000 Km. My current tire is almost worn out at 8500 Kms.

you can try looking for options in the 130/80-17 size. I know there's RALCO Blaster available in that size, but is more dual sport than a road focussed tyre.[/quote]

This may be a good choice, but do not have any experience about RALCO brand. Only saw some ads on TV about RALCO bicycle tires many years back.

Also, need to check, if it will fit Himalayan. Can I get it online?

[praful]

Originally Posted by 2W-4W

Also, need to check, if it will fit Himalayan. Can I get it online?

A 130/80-17 should fit the Himalayan.

I haven't seen that size being sold online.

And, the Metzler Tourance was also being sold briefly online for the 130/80-17 size. You can possibly hunt for that, but it will be above the budget you are look at (around 8K).

[Pratzgh1]

I need a 100/90/17 front tyre for my pulsar 220. Any suggestions apart from the Sport demon?

[theredliner]

My RTR 160's 5 year old, 37k km run TVS tyres are due for replacement (The treads look like they still have some 20-30k left). Even though I had always felt that the tyres are crappy, the feeling got amplified ever since I got my RC 390 which comes with super sticky Metzelers. I get the feeling that my RTR floats on the road. The tyres also tramline like crazy.

Anyway, coming to the topic, the stock sizes are:
Front: 90/90-17 Tube Type
Rear: 100/80-18 Tube Type

Ever since the RC came home, RTR has been restricted to city usage.

The only decent rubbers I can find in tubetype are MRF Zapper FS 90/90-17 and MRF Zapper C 100/90-18.

I can however find tubeless ones like
Zapper FY1 (R15 v2.0's front) - 90/80 R17
Zapper Y - 100/90-18. Even though it has a TT option, all stores seem to have TL alone.

The question I have is, can I safely use these tyres in my RTR using an inner tube without any issues?

[praful]

Originally Posted by Pratzgh1

I need a 100/90/17 front tyre for my pulsar 220. Any suggestions apart from the Sport demon?

Your speedo/odo readings will have quite a large margin of error, it will show lesser speeds/kms clocked compared to the stock tyre of 90/90-17 size.

Also the 100/90-17 is usually a rear tyre, so you may not find a front tyre in that size and will have to run a rear tyre as front.

Originally Posted by theredliner

The question I have is, can I safely use these tyres in my RTR using an inner tube without any issues?

Why not run the bike with TL tyres?

The combo of FY1+Y is a stickier option than the FS+C option. The FS+C isn't a bad option either, that's what my bike came with from factory. Either way you can't go wrong with either. However, with the FY1 you need to be a bit careful with potholes as it will have lesser sidewall height to absorb the hits.

[theredliner]

Thanks for the info. Sorry for the delayed response. I somehow missed the notification.

Originally Posted by praful

Why not run the bike with TL tyres?

Shifting to TL alloys from newer 160s/180s will cost me ~6k.
I have read numerous articles about the dangers of running TL tyres on TT alloys. As a result, I prefer to run TL tyres with tubes.

The bike is used mainly for commutes and running errands inside the city. Hence, the longer range of TL tyres in case of punctures won't be missed much.

Originally Posted by praful

The combo of FY1+Y is a stickier option than the FS+C option. The FS+C isn't a bad option either, that's what my bike came with from factory. Either way you can't go wrong with either. However, with the FY1 you need to be a bit careful with potholes as it will have lesser sidewall height to absorb the hits.

Considering the fact that the roads in BLR are terrible, going with FY1 seems quite risky.

How would you rate the combo of FS + Y? Both are available in TT as well. How would they fare in front of the TVS ATT tyres that used to come as stock in RTRs (pre 2013)?
How is the grip in wet/mud? I recently rode through a slushy road after rains and the TVS ATTs were fish-tailing crazily at speeds of 10-15 km/h without any braking or hard acceleration

[praful]

Originally Posted by theredliner

I have read numerous articles about the dangers of running TL tyres on TT alloys. As a result, I prefer to run TL tyres with tubes.

If you can get a hold of both the TT and TL rim (should be easy to find any any TVS ASC), I would recommend that you compare the difference in width of the sealing area on the edge of the rim. Only *if* it is significantly different you won't be able to run it in TL mode. Else IMO, you are good to switch to TL.

Originally Posted by theredliner

How would you rate the combo of FS + Y? Both are available in TT as well. How would they fare in front of the TVS ATT tyres that used to come as stock in RTRs (pre 2013)?
How is the grip in wet/mud?

" r
Ah! The skidy TVS tyres, the MRF are definitely a couple of notches better in dry and wet tarmac, however in slush its going to be more or less the same. If you encounter slush frequently, you can consider looking at MRF Meteor but IIRC it does not come in the 100/80-18 flavour, instead it comes in the 100/90-18 size.But no point in relaxing the bike out with taller gear ratios if its limited to city limits.

Unfortunately, there aren't too many options in the 100/80-18 size now a days as mostly everything including Apache's are running on 17" rears.

[theredliner]

Originally Posted by praful

If you can get a hold of both the TT and TL rim (should be easy to find any any TVS ASC), I would recommend that you compare the difference in width of the sealing area on the edge of the rim. Only *if* it is significantly different you won't be able to run it in TL mode. Else IMO, you are good to switch to TL.

IIRC, I could see an extra beading (that prevents the sidewalls from coming too close to each other in case of deflation) in the TL rims that was not present in mine. So I decided to play safe. There was a point in time when I had planned to buy new TL rims and use them but dropped that idea after the KTM came home.

Ah! The skidy TVS tyres, the MRF are definitely a couple of notches better in dry and wet tarmac, however in slush its going to be more or less the same. If you encounter slush frequently, you can consider looking at MRF Meteor but IIRC it does not come in the 100/80-18 flavour, instead it comes in the 100/90-18 size.But no point in relaxing the bike out with taller gear ratios if its limited to city limits.

Unfortunately, there aren't too many options in the 100/80-18 size now a days as mostly everything including Apache's are running on 17" rears.

TVS tyres are good enough for riding upto the tyre shop after delivery. One positive thing about them is that I have learnt brake modulation very well

Slush is almost never encountered. So Meteor is not needed.
The size is really a big issue. TVS should have asked Pirelli to make some tyres for their existing owners too when they made a tie up for RTR 200 or should have developed their new tyres (which are supposedly better) in the 100/80-18 size. The sell and forget attitude of TVS is something I can't stand (not concluding based on this incident alone).

Your line about the FS and C/Y being better than TVS is reassuring. I wouldn't really mind slightly taller ratios as I always keep on looking for 6th gear even when cruising around 55-60
I've finalized on 90/90-17 FS for front. Among the Zapper C and Zapper Y (100/90-18) for the rear, which one do you recommend?